The Supreme Court Wednesday described the criticism of the Punjab and Haryana High Court of its verdict as “scandalous and unnecessary”. The Supreme Court had taken suo motu notice of a July 17 order critical of its decision to stay contempt proceedings initiated by the High Court in a case.

A five-judge bench, including Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, Surya Kant and Hrishikesh Roy reviewed the matter today, as reported by Hindustan Times.

“Observations made by Punjab and Haryana HC in its order are scandalous,” CJI Chandrachud said.

The CJI said judges are not aggrieved by the orders passed by higher courts, but discipline has to be maintained.

“We are pained by observations made by Punjab and Haryana HC judge,” said the five-judge bench.

The top court said “unnecessary observations” were made about so many things by the Punjab and Haryana HC.

The order by High Court Justice Rajbir Sehrawat accused the Supreme Court of overestimating its own authority and diminishing the role of high courts.

The judge remarked that the Supreme Court tends to perceive itself as more “supreme” than it actually is and views high courts as being less “high” than they are constitutionally, the HT report said.

In response to the remark, CJI Chandrachud said neither the Supreme Court nor high courts are supreme. “The supremacy is actually of the Constitution,” the CJI clarified.

Justice Sehrawat’s judgment sounded a “note of caution” for the Supreme Court, urging it to be more explicit about the potential legal ramifications of any decisions it makes. He noted that the Supreme Court stayed the contempt proceedings not while hearing an appeal against the order initiating contempt, but in an appeal against the order that led to the contempt proceedings.

He observed: “Seen at a psychological plane this type of order is actuated, primarily, by two factors, firstly a tendency to avoid owning responsibility of the consequence which such an order, in all likelihood, is bound to produce, under a pretense that an order of stay of contempt proceedings does not adversely affect anybody. Secondly, a tendency to presume the Supreme Court to be more ‘Supreme’ than it actually is and to presume a High Court to be lesser ‘High’ than it constitutionally.”

The judge remarked that the Supreme Court has repeatedly clarified that high courts are not subordinate to it. “The relation between high court and the Supreme Court is not the same as is the elation between a civil judge (junior division) within its jurisdiction and the high court. In terms of Articles 132 to 134 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court is not even an ordinary court of unconditional appeal, unless there is a specific statute providing for appeal from the orders of the high court to the Supreme Court in specified matters,” he said.

The judge said that although high courts may follow Supreme Court directions—whether due to perceived coercion, respect, or institutional authority—the Supreme Court may not always consider the “drastic and damaging consequences” of its stay orders on contempt proceedings.

As an example, the judge cited a stay order in a specific case that the judge claimed led to approximately 35% of Punjab and Haryana’s superior judiciary members being denied their selection grade and super time scale for several years. This occurred because the high court, on its administrative side, interpreted the Supreme Court’s stay as effectively halting a final order issued by its division bench on the judicial side, Justice Sehrawat explained.

The judge raised the question of accountability, asking whether the responsibility for the situation should lie with the high court or the Supreme Court. He suggested that both courts should engage in “soul searching” to resolve the issue and recommended that the Supreme Court issue more precise orders to prevent similar problems in the future.

The judgment concluded with the case being adjourned sine die until the Supreme Court rules on the relevant appeal. The judge noted that following such a course might not always be feasible for the high court, depending on the specifics of the case or applicable statutory provisions.

On Monday, Chief Justice Sheel Nagu of the Punjab and Haryana High Court altered the roster, transferring all contempt of court cases from Justice Sehrawat to Justice Harkesh Manuja, the report added.